Forgotten patch: qofid.diff

[Chris Shoemaker]

On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 10:39:32PM -0400, Derek Atkins wrote:
> Quoting Chris Shoemaker <c.shoemaker at cox.net>:
> 
> >On Fri, Oct 28, 2005 at 07:08:19PM -0400, Josh Sled wrote:
> >>On Fri, 2005-10-28 at 17:04 -0400, David Hampton wrote:
> >>> > Which is why we NEED more publication of the DEVELOPMENT code, not the
> >>> > finished "CoreBuild" code.
> >>>
> >>> So get a branch and publish your code.  This is no different than
> >>> committing change sets to a repository.  Someone has to check out the
> >>> branch/apply the changeset if they want to see what you're working on.
> >>
> >>+1.  This whole "CoreBuild" specter that has been synthesized is a waste
> >>of time.  Create a branch, already.
> >
> >Guys, it's really not about the branching.  If it was, CVS wouldn't
> >suck; CVS supports branching just fine.  It's about the MERGING of
> >branches.  *That's* why CVS sucks.
> 
> CVS merges branches just fine.  As David said:
> 
>  cvs update -j tag1 -j tag2
> 
> It'll merge great.  Like /all/ SCMs you need to manually resolve
> conflicts.  But the merge works just fine.

No Derek.  It doesn't.  If you branch and then make say 250 commits to
your branch (that's about how many I would have right now with a
cs-based scm) and there were 250 commits on the other branch (that's
about how many there've been on G2 since I started the
register-rewrite) and then try to merge them based on the final two
resulting trees, with CVS, or any versioned file-tree system, you very
well might have a HUGE MESS.  OTOH, if have all 500 commits and 250^2
degrees of freedom in merge order, you're much more likely to be able
to merge with NO conflicts.  And any conflicts you do have will be the
conflicts of *individual* commits.

> From where I sit, your major complaint is that you don't have CVS
> commit access.  Everything else you're saying follows from that one
> point.  If you had CVS commit access then EVERYTHING you've been
> complaining about would be moot, because, well, even CVS does it all.

Maybe you missed the email where I said in CAPITAL LETTERS that giving
me commit access WON'T SOLVE THE PROBLEM.  Or maybe you missed my
idealization of having no one but David commit to g2.  Or maybe you
just don't believe me.  Or maybe you just wish that there was an easy
fix.  I know I do.

C'mon, have I ever given any indication of not speaking my mind?  I
don't think so.  I did say that commit access would make my
development easier, but if I thought that the real problem was my
commit access, I'd LET YOU KNOW, trust me.  I don't have time for
games; there're too many beautiful ideas that need coding.

Incidentally, I really think you and I have philosophical differences
here.  I don't WANT the authority to dictate what code is in the
software you use.  I want ONLY YOU to have that authority.  OTOH, I
*do* want the ability to make MY code available to whoever wants it
(and will agree to the license), and to work with others efficiently.
Those are my goals.

You have absolutely no obligation to help me achieve those goals, and
I have no right to demand that you do.  I hope you don't think I would
do that.  I really don't think there's any point of conflict here, so
please don't find one.  Besides, there's plenty of real areas of
disagreement.  :)

> The /only/ thing CVS doesn't do well is file moves/renames.

Interesting...  I can honestly say you're the first person I've ever
heard make that precise assertion.  I think you may have the minority
report there, Derek.  :)

-chris